McDonough v. Sutton
| Decision Date | 13 October 1876 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | John McDonough v. Benjamin F. Sutton and another |
Submitted on Briefs June 21, 1876
Error to Hillsdale Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Pratt & Dickerman and C. A. Stacy, for plaintiff in error.
E. L & M. B. Koon, for defendants in error.
McDonough sued Sutton and Boyle in trover for the alleged conversion of one hundred and twenty-five hogs, and the jury finding against him, he brought error.
His objections relate to instructions given and refused. True, some others are stated in the record, but they are not insisted on and will not be noticed.
Whether or not the court erred in giving or refusing instructions, is not important unless the error may have worked prejudice to McDonough's legal rights, and if upon the case as disclosed it not only appears that the evidence had no tendency to make out his cause of action, but, on the contrary, showed that the basis of his claim was such that any charge permitting him to recover would have been improper, it follows he could not have been prejudiced by the ruling, however incorrect, and cannot complain of the finding. As the case must turn upon this view of it, we shall not consider whether the court was right or wrong in the charges given or in the refusals. The vital question at the trial was, whether McDonough was owner of the hogs at the time of the alleged conversion, and indeed whether he became owner at any time. His right rested upon the fact of ownership, and not upon a possessory claim growing out of some other relation to the property. If he was not owner, his action of trover was not maintainable.
He claimed in substance that Sutton, dealing with him through his father, Michael McDonough, sold and conveyed the hogs to him about September 3, 1868, and then turned round and sold and delivered them to the defendant Boyle, and that thereupon Sutton and Boyle denied his right, and disposed of the hogs according to their own pleasure.
The ground taken by defendants was in substance mainly that the transaction between Sutton and plaintiff fell through by McDonough's default, and never eventuated in any transfer of the property in the hogs. The details on either side do not require statement. Neither is it needful to refer to the evidence adduced by defendants, any further than to say, that it bore against the plaintiff's position, and in no part had any tendency to aid it.
The clear import of the plaintiff's evidence was, that a number of farmers had bargained their respective lots of hogs to Sutton at an agreed price, to be paid on delivery, after allowing small payments made at the time of bargaining;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Murray
... ... Richards v ... Tozer, 27 Mich. 451; Beebe v. Knapp, 28 Mich ... 71; Davis v. Bush, 28 Mich. 432; McDonough v ... Sutton, 35 Mich. 1; Lenox v. Fuller, 39 Mich ... 268; Keables v. Christie, 47 Mich. 594; [S.C. 11 ... N.W. 400.] In regard to the ... ...
-
Hale v. State
...The writ had then become functus officio. At most, it was an immaterial departure from the prescribed mode. 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. L., 343; 35 Mich. 1; 45 Ib., 424; 33 Minn. 480; 7 Texas App., 3 Wend., 258; 19 S. Car., 435. Evidence of the preceding difficulty was properly excluded. Foster v. S......
-
Edwards v. Frank
... ... James ... W. Romeyn for defendant in error. One cannot maintain trover ... unless title has vested in him. McDonough v. Sutton, ... 35 Mich. 1; Chambers v. Hill, 34 Mich. 523 ... Campbell, ... C. J. The other Justices concurred ... ...
-
Ortman v. Shaw
...see Ducey Lumber Co. v. Lane 58 Mich. 520, 25 N.W. 568; and for cases in which it did not pass enough to maintain trover on, see McDonough v. Sutton 35 Mich. 1; or to justify levy: Crapo v. Seybold id. 169; Marquette Mfg. Co. v. Jeffery 49 Mich. 283, 13 N.W. 592. And where timbered land is ......